Here's my spiel, please read the whole thing if your going to respond. Have fun and dont lose your temper, its just a debate

GOD’S LACK OF EVIDENCE

If no one can give any evidence that can pass all of these tests then I stand by my conviction that there is no scientific proof of God and therefore s/he is not recognized by the scientific method and does not exist

The evidence or proof must:

-come from acceptable scientific evidence and facts which can be proved

-not come from individuals’ convictions or beliefs as they DO NOT constitute scientific evidence, nor do individual’s experiences. People are notoriously unreliable witnesses, liars and exaggerators. Often times they believe they have seen or experienced something which has not happened

-have a proven connection to God using the scientific method


That’s it! If you do think you have something that passes the three tests please send me the evidence with your argument at windwip@hotmail.com with subject ‘God Debate’
If you have any questions or disagreements with any of my arguments feel free to email
-Macy




The definitions and arguments for the preceding statements follow-

God - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

scientific method The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.


scientific evidence - A thing or things which have passed the scientific method used to form a conclusion or judgment




Here are arguments in support of my case

(1) People are notorious liars and exaggerators

(2) If you have an unexplained unknown, it is not acceptable to propose another unknown in answer / Historic Religions

(3) Reasons for why so many believe in God

(4) Intelligent Design


***
(1) People are notorious liars and exaggerators

People are known to be incredibly unreliable witnesses. During the middle ages there were countless sightings of the Virgin Mary. Jeanne d’Arc in France, St. Bridget in Sweden and Girolamo Savonarola in Italy all claimed to have seen Mary, but less known were the hundreds of sightings by farmers, women and children. People claimed to have seen Mary and that she told them to build a church or invade another county. The reasons for creating and believing these stories are abundant, ranging from conforming other’s belief to your faith, bringing business to your city, all the way to simply gaining social status.
All people have a need for a power of one sort or another. People are inherently needy and have wants, whether it is money, pride or raising one’s emotional esteem. A good deed will often make you feel better, while stories which elevate past the truth will put others in awe, and although you did not perform this feat, the attention will be drawn to you and your story. It is only sharing part of the glory of the original deed, but the greater the endeavor that you tell, the more that people will react and the more attention you will draw to yourself.


***
(2) If you have an unexplained unknown, it is not acceptable to propose another unknown in answer / Historic Religions

In scientific research, one is always searching for the simplest explanation that explains all the facts. If you have an unknown for which you do not have an explanation, it is not acceptable to propose another, imagined unknown, for which you have no scientific evidence. Having said that, I would like to bring the value of religions in my presentation into focus. They are not proof of God’s existence and likewise are not a denial to his existence, but they are merely used in my argument to help explain man’s thoughts and his conscience with respect to his relation with his belief in a greater being. God has never been proven to exist with respectable scientific evidence, although this may be, it is not possible to prove that an undetectable, invisible, unperceivable being does not exist. I can prove religions false, inaccurate and hypocritical and still not prove that a god does not exist. Instead of physically proving that God’s existence is impossible, since no reliable scientific proof holds this idea within the bounds of reason, I will first explore man’s reasoning and belief in a god or gods.

Historic Religions -
A contradicting issue to our recent religious history is Greek Mythology. First, what is the meaning of myth? A fictitious story, person, or thing. Does anyone believe in Zeus anymore? He was the Greek king of the Gods and was proposed responsible for lightning, he threw lightning bolts. We have climbed to the top of Mt. Olympus and found nothing and we now have the scientific evidence that explains lightning. The myriad experiments show that lightning is caused by the release of static electric charges between differently charged masses, effectuated by the ionization of the air between the masses. This is another incident where baseless religious ideas were used for reasoning with the unknown, but for the same reasons which God exists, Zeus exists as well. The common belief of where God resided, up until recently, was the sky, also known as the heavens. That is not the case for all religions I know, but for those that follow the bible and know the text will realize what I am talking of. Now that we can fly, and now that we have seen nothing in the ‘heavens’ the idea of God has changed, as it did many times before. Why do you think the bible needs newer versions?
God is now described as what we simple humans cannot perceive in any way. This is what I have heard from priests, ministers and most theists. You will find few people who today believe that heaven and God are visible and reside in the clouds. The justification behind this decision was to prevent challenges to the existence of God.
The original reasons for the creation of religions boils down to the fear of death and explanations for the unknown. The theory of evolution didn’t come about until the early 1800s and no other scientific explanation could be found, therefore the ideas of Adam and Eve or the creation of all life from water were readily accepted. The Aztecs believed that the sun and moon were gods and that gods controlled the weather and their crops, merely to explain what they could not conceive at the time. We are in an era now, where the unknown is rapidly dissipating, but the basis of religion is on the explanation of the unknown. There is one unknown which we will not be able to confront, death is a fear which is ever present in many people and drives them to believe even the most absurd and illogical ideas. The idea of Hades, Thanatos, Pluto, the gates of hell and Valhalla are now considered outdated by the masses, but they all served the same purpose, just as Heaven and Hell do now.

***
(3) Reasons for why so many believe in God

They were taught their parents’ religion at an early age, which is and has been quite common. In schoolhouses across the country during the early 1900s, books were scarce and the bible was often used to teach children to read. This is happening when a child’s critical thinking capabilities are not even near fully developed. From three to eight years old a child’s frontal lobe, which controls the child’s thought process and ability to understand, goes through multiple growth spurts. By age eight the child has the means to comprehend much more complex ideas and issues, but the child’s ability to effectively judge and critique have only just begun to mature. By the time they have grown to an age where they can interpret and fully understand the lessons and stories taught to them, they have the basics of the religion engrained into their minds.
The second reason is fear. People have a natural and necessary fear of death. If we did not fear death and give it respect, we would die off like lemmings by carelessness or simply to entertain ourselves. The thought of death without an afterlife is frightening for most people, the end, nothingness, not even a black void. The closest we can come to death is a deep sleep which we remember none of. We can not simulate the experience of death for you cannot think or use your mind when dead and there-for cannot remember it. The pleasurable scenario, which many have taken to, is the idea of Heaven or another form of life after death for other religions. Whatever you like or fancy is there, it is often described as a perfect land with no flaws, but if you do not obey this religion, choose another religion or sin, you will be sent to the opposite of Heaven. Although many other religions do not have a Hell, they most definitely have a consequence for the three transgressions which I mentioned earlier. Hell is quite often described as a suffering experience. Torment and anguish fall upon those who reside there. It is everything that is bad, and apparently has lots of fire. When ignorant masses or citizens easily deluded, are presented with a decree, which if they do not follow, when they die they will undergo eternal damnation, they will readily accept without thought. For those which contemplate and thoughtfully deliberate over such decisions, whether or not the decree is true, they are less likely manipulated, but the fear of emptiness after death is so strong that often times people are willing to follow religions in order to feel security. They will often follow so strongly, for want of another life, that if they had doubts in the beginning they will want to believe so badly that they will deceive themselves and even those who listen to them.

***
(4) Intelligent Design

I have not looked into the thousands of religions and cults, but of the major religions, the flaw which predetermines the accuracy of every book of faith which I have read, is their theory of the creation of the earth and of man. The theory behind this argument is that it is impossible for a being as complex as a human to exist without a greater being’s help. C. S. Lewis was the founder of one of the main arguments used in Intelligent Design. His argument was that if you came across a wall in the middle of a prairie, would you assume it happened by chance or would you assume someone built it? The basic flaw behind this comparison is that a wall is not alive and cannot reproduce or mutate. Humans mutate constantly though, stillborns and disabled babies are almost always mutated in some way or another. The human body will often naturally abort a fetus which has been mutated in a way which would hinder its’ chance of survival. Survival of the fittest is not only exercised in today’s society, but has been used to weed out the weaker species. This is evolution.
A surprising fact, is that the human DNA, which is the design for the outcome of that human, is on average .8% different from the standard human DNA. This is due to mutations in the DNA structure. Chimps are of a lower intellect and therefore do not prosper as well as humans, but their DNA structure is 98.4% the same as humans, a difference from of 1.6%. Arguments may vary this amount up to 5%, but these sources fail to compensate for the discarded information used to determine this percent. Chimps are actually closer related to humans than they are to gorillas, orangutans and gibbons. They are even closer related than two species of gibbon, the common gibbon and the siamang gibbon.
Therefore we can see that evolution does exist and through this logic we can see that a lesser creature can mutate over generations to become a smarter and more advanced creature too. Then we can also apply this to Homo sapiens, which have had between 200,000 and 300,000 years to evolve. Humans evolved at a gradual nature at this time, and it is a complicated process identifying exactly when the evolutionary transition from Homo ergaster to Homo sapiens occurred.
Since we have evolution with no scientific evidence of any help from a greater being and furthermore no basis for the possibility of a greater being’s help we can conclude that there is no God helping out in this field.

There is no way to prove or disprove the existance of a supreme being. By its very nature, it is impossible.

Proof would be possible. Bit proving that He does not exist is impossible. In fact, it is generally impossible to prove that something does not exist.
Examples : God, WMD in Iraq.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Proof would be possible. Bit proving that He does not exist is impossible. In fact, it is generally impossible to prove that something does not exist.
Examples : God, WMD in Iraq.

Lol, nice cheap shot astrapol.

Also, nice summarized argument for the non-existence of god by Wind-Wip.

1. Being a christian is very difficult, so think twice before you say people like me are looking for the easy way out.

2. Being a christian is the best way to become very unpopular in society, so think twice before you say people like me use our beliefs to make ourselves popular.

3. If you are to become a christian, then you must throw away your belief that everything needs proof. God wants us to believe through faith to prove our loyalty to him.

1. Being a christian is very difficult, so think twice before you say people like me are looking for the easy way out.
I'll go along with this. There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible, so it must be pretty hard not to step afoul of these.
2. Being a christian is the best way to become very unpopular in society, so think twice before you say people like me use our beliefs to make ourselves popular.
Now THAT's funny. 85% of America proclaims themselves to be Christian. Seems like you'd become very popular.
3. If you are to become a christian, then you must throw away your belief that everything needs proof. God wants us to believe through faith to prove our loyalty to him.
Why would God do that? Is he some kind of sadist? There are lots of religions on this planet, and somehow he expects us to choose the right one with no rational basis for doing so? I find that hard to believe, unless God is in fact a sadist.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
There is no way to prove or disprove the existance of a supreme being. By its very nature, it is impossible.

What kind of logic is that?

Why should a supreme being "by it's very nature" be impossible to prove - you'd think if it were so supreme then it'd be fairly easy to prove the existance of....

The first post requests proof in terms of scientific method. I don't think this is the way to look at it. It's only been a few hundred years since mankind jumped on the scientific method bandwagon. It has taken us far, but it has taken away much. Scientific method cannot explain how the common cold works - just because something cannot be rationalized yet does not make it false.

Do I think there is a supreme being? I don't know, there is lots we do not know and cannot comprehend. In the same way that a cat will never understand or comprehend the stock market - we are likely to be the same in terms of how we are here and why. With that in mind - relax and know you will never comprehend what ever it is. It's ok to be the cat.

In this area one cannot believe anything with certainty. Christianity is existance all wrapped up in a box with a bow on it. It explains it all and so all is well in the world. People don't like uncertainty, yet uncertainty is all there is.

So, I believe there is something, but I know I will never know what it is, all I can see are it's impacts. Just like the weather from space is a beautiful pattern that you never see on the ground, uncertainty has it's pattern and if you accept it - then it works with you instead of against you. Can I explain that, or define it - no. Prayer is effective in all religions and cults alike, but what is prayer except handing over the problem to uncertainty, giving up control and hoping for the right outcome, even if that right outcome is not what you think you want.

If christanity works for people then great - there is nothing wrong in that and probably much right. The notion that "god" expects us to believe in some simplistic ideas is a bit far fetched. This is exactly how religions mind control their victims, but I guess it keeps people off the streets. I'm all for societal mind control in moderation - without it society would never have made it this far.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Being a christian is the best way to become very unpopular in society, so think twice before you say people like me use our beliefs to make ourselves popular.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contrary to Borg thinking the statement is funny. I think it is a perfectly understandable statement. People who are hard-core christians are not afforded much popularity except for with other hard-core believers. But heck - life isn't a popularity contest - everybody forms their circles, safety in numbers.

The logical path I followed, Drew, when I came to this conclusion is that if God is indeed supreme, he would be able to hide himself forever if he so desired. So far, if he does indeed exist, he has done a good job of it. Now if this god decided to give us some evidence, then it's possible to prove it. But otherwise, you're on a wild goose chase.

Ok, but that isn't logical, it's just an idea.

Do you believe in quantum mechanics? This is science unexplainable but yet it does exist.

Originally posted by mad dog
Do you believe in quantum mechanics? This is science unexplainable but yet it does exist.
Science hasn't fully explained it but much has been explained and the rest has proven to at least happen, even though we don't know why. I expect us to gain greater knowledge of quantum mechanics in coming decades.

I think its funny that most of us try to force our beliefs on others, rather than just tolerating what we think and move on.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Science hasn't fully explained it but much has been explained and the rest has proven to at least happen, even though we don't know why. I expect us to gain greater knowledge of quantum mechanics in coming decades.

well then how do you know for a fact that God won't be proven in comming decades?

Originally posted by mad dog
well then how do you know for a fact that God won't be proven in comming decades?
I don't, and never claimed I did.

I now you didn't Borg, I have read your other post were you have said maybe someday God will be proven. My point was there are many things not proven in this world, so how can we deny anything?

Originally posted by DrewM
The first post requests proof in terms of scientific method. I don't think this is the way to look at it. It's only been a few hundred years since mankind jumped on the scientific method bandwagon. It has taken us far, but it has taken away much. Scientific method cannot explain how the common cold works - just because something cannot be rationalized yet does not make it false.

I don't know if you want to use the common cold as an analogy to the existence of God. We know that the common cold is a virus, we know that it can mutate and does so regularly, and we have proven or nearly proven all of these because of the scientific method, but I have not found any evidence or proof for God from using the scientific method.


Originally posted by DrewM
In this area one cannot believe anything with certainty. Christianity is existance all wrapped up in a box with a bow on it. It explains it all and so all is well in the world. People don't like uncertainty, yet uncertainty is all there is.

So, I believe there is something, but I know I will never know what it is, all I can see are it's impacts. Just like the weather from space is a beautiful pattern that you never see on the ground, uncertainty has it's pattern and if you accept it - then it works with you instead of against you. Can I explain that, or define it - no. Prayer is effective in all religions and cults alike, but what is prayer except handing over the problem to uncertainty, giving up control and hoping for the right outcome, even if that right outcome is not what you think you want.


I can concede that ignorance is bliss for the individual if it does not take away basic necessities, BUT ignorance for a community is bad thing. Knowledge for a community if used properly can end starvation, increase efficiency, and ease life's pains if that is the common will.

When you say that you can see it's impacts, I am assuming you are refering to God, but I assure you that if you look closely and deep enough you will find a logical reason for everything that happens in life.

I believe that prayer can ease stress, as well as meditation, but I can see no connection between prayer and the right outcome.
An example is Jesus. I may not believe that he has done what is credited to him in the Bible, but putting that aside for now. I am sure people have prayed for him and if he is as good as the attributes credited to him then the right outcome would have been for him to survive, but he did not.

Originally posted by DrewM
If christanity works for people then great - there is nothing wrong in that and probably much right. The notion that "god" expects us to believe in some simplistic ideas is a bit far fetched. This is exactly how religions mind control their victims, but I guess it keeps people off the streets. I'm all for societal mind control in moderation - without it society would never have made it this far.

You sound like a minister or a preacher, it makes me almost not want to argue your points, but then my other side takes over.

There are some outcomes of religion that are very good, such as morality and ethics. I do believe that they should be taught to everyone, but the dogma should not. Unproven principles should NEVER be presented as fact, especially to young kids who have not developed a critical mind.
Now I know that I will be faced with this so Ill respond in advance; evolution is not a proven fact, yet, but it is NOT presented as fact in school. Do not confuse the two.

Originally posted by mad dog
Do you believe in quantum mechanics? This is science unexplainable but yet it does exist.
well then how do you know for a fact that God won't be proven in comming decades?

The science is not proven or fully explained, but there has been much progress made. If research continues as it is currently, we should have understanding of the science in the coming years.
If research continues as it is currently for the existence of God, in 100, or 1000 years we will be where we are today.

Originally posted by WindWip
The science is not proven or fully explained, but there has been much progress made. If research continues as it is currently, we should have understanding of the science in the coming years.
If research continues as it is currently for the existence of God, in 100, or 1000 years we will be where we are today.

And you know this for a fact...... how? I say you are blowing just as much hot air as any other person on this planet. Science will go on and on and on. Research will go on and on and on. The search for God will go on and on and on. Science will never quit and the search for God will never quit. I do not understand how a person can totally doubt one and not the other. If you choose not to believe, no problem, it still doesn't wipe out the beliefs of others. At one time the wright brothers were thought to be stupid, crazy, mental etc... Well just think were we would be if everyone changed there minds.

I ask again were is your PROOF there is NO God?

Originally posted by mad dog
I ask again were is your PROOF there is NO God?
There is just as much proof for a god as there is against it: none. That's why I'm an atheist/agnostic: No proof, no evidence, no sale. No matter how much anyone dances around the issue, it is a matter of faith. My character makeup is such that I don't believe anything without at least some evidence for it. There is none for a god, so it is irrelevant if there is any against it.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
My character makeup is such that I don't believe anything without at least some evidence for it. There is none for a god, so it is irrelevant if there is any against it.

I know that this is a little off-topic, but do you have trouble trusting other people? Trust or belief or faith is subjective. But I would like to respond in at least this way to one of the original assumptions.

If religion is meant to package everything into an easily understandable box by making God overly simplistic, then wouldn't proving the exsistence of God also make things overly simplistic?

The complexity of life and death itself cannot disprove the exsistence of God. I would have to agree that by the scientific method up to this point there is no tangible proof for the existence of God, but to simply say that the only purpose for religion is to package everything up, is untrue.

There has to be a philosophical aspect to this discussion, because what you're really searching for is not just proof, but truth.

Hmmm… I think what this all boils down to is what the individual perceives as scientific evidence. Some people are so determined to disprove God’s existence that no amount of physical evidence can change their mind. Even if God himself descended from the heavens to announce his presence these people would refuse to believe, denouncing the whole thing as some sort of hoax.

Me, I consider, of all other things, the human brain proof of God’s existence. Throughout history mankind has tried to determine how a human mind works, but to no avail. It is known that the brain sends messages, both voluntary and involuntary, to the rest of the body via the spinal cord, but it is unknown what these messages are formed of; science has been unable to duplicate this impulse. It is also unknown what powers the human brain. Where does the brain get the power to maintain a steady heart rate, digestive tract, and perspiration rate in the body? What gives the brain the power to maneuver every muscle in the body in perfect unison? When this “power” leaves the brain, the body ceases to function... Why? The way I see it, not even the most brilliant scientist on earth can figure out the functions of a human mind, so it must have been designed by something superior to humans. Maybe someday we will fully understand the human brain, but SOMETHING already does, otherwise the brain wouldn’t exist.

Anyone who sees things ENTIRELY from a scientific viewpoint has got a closed mind. People with closed minds only see what’s directly in front of them and not the big picture. At the beginning of the 20th century, most scientists believed humanity had reached the peak of technology and that there was no point in trying to advance any further. If it hadn’t been for those few who had an open mind, we’d still be riding around on horses and carriages and depending on the Pony Express to deliver our mail.

It is impossable to prove or disprove god, but if god is real he needs do hire some new representitives here on earth.

Originally posted by mad dog
Science will go on and on and on. Research will go on and on and on. The search for God will go on and on and on. Science will never quit and the search for God will never quit.

I ask again were is your PROOF there is NO God?

Science is making visible progress. Medicine, knowledge of anatomy, chemistry, biology. ALL of these have made great advances, but religion has not. Research will go on and on and will continue to prove itself through it's accomplishments, but the search has not given proven accomplishments.

Do you believe in a invisible fat flying gnome, that whenever we have bad thoughts it gets fatter and blows hot air. Also, we can't touch it or prove it in any way. BUT HE EXISTS!
If I write a book on it will you believe me?

My point is, the burden of proof is not on my shoulders. I have not declared the existence of something and therefore I do not have to give proof for disproving something that has none to begin with.

I know that this is a little off-topic, but do you have trouble trusting other people?

Do you give a stranger any more trust than your perception of a previous steriotype has credited him? You would not trust a slick businessman to do the right thing with your life savings. You would make sure that he could not just take them and run off.
Trust is earned through actions and also through the actions of a representitive of others.
Faith is placing your trust in the hands of my little fat flying gnome

Even if God himself descended from the heavens to announce his presence these people would refuse to believe, denouncing the whole thing as some sort of hoax.


If my flying gnome came down and become visible, would you go get your eyes checked? Probably someone playing a trick on you, right?

If God came down and we could be sure that it was God himself, yes I would believe in him. That would be enough proof for me, but until that happens I will need more evidence then I have seen.

Maybe someday we will fully understand the human brain, but SOMETHING already does, otherwise the brain wouldn’t exist.

Weeeeell now, it doesn't exist if no one understands it? I see absolutly no reason for that.
If there is a volcano, who needed to understand it before the erruption could happen. Obviously the two are not directly related. Something can occur without someone or something understanding it.


Anyone who sees things ENTIRELY from a scientific viewpoint has got a closed mind. People with closed minds only see what’s directly in front of them and not the big picture. At the beginning of the 20th century, most scientists believed humanity had reached the peak of technology and that there was no point in trying to advance any further. If it hadn’t been for those few who had an open mind, we’d still be riding around on horses and carriages and depending on the Pony Express to deliver our mail.

Your making quite an assumption there. To search for the reason for an occurance can not hurt. To further investigate sciences and technology does not stop people for seeing into future. Contrarily, science and scientific reasoning is what has made the discoveries which you named. A closed mind is not a good thing, but you have made the assumption that seeing things only from a scientific viewpoint is being closed off. Everything that we can observe or theorize from observations be encorporated into science or scientific reasoning.
God is an example of what cannot be encorporated into these, but it came from observations that had NOT followed scientific reasoning. Thus fairytales and similar ideas are the areas which scientific minds are closed off to. Though there really are no people who see everything entirely from a scientific viewpoint.

As for the beginning of the 20th centry standoff, in the roaring 20's we were not anywhere near stopping science and innovation, we had thought it was only the beginning.
The very beginning of the 1900's led to the 20's and there was production and innovation then too.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
The I'm an atheist/agnostic.

You know, atheists and agnostics are not the same. I used to be agnostic but have gone atheist.




Windwip -


Call me a nitpicky overeducated student with an Environmental Science degree, but the common cold is caused by a virus, not a bacteria.....there's a big difference in the world of biology.

So sorry, slip of the finger. Thx for catching that

A volcanic eruption is one of many things human beings have no control over. Some assume that because we can’t control it, nothing can; this is a VERY arrogant assumption. Humans are not as powerful as we like to believe we are; there are lots of events that occur everyday that we cannot control or explain. To say these events are entirely coincidental and are not controlled by ANY conscious force would be quite haughty.

Despite scientific advancement, there’s still a lot we don’t know. Our current knowledge is far too small to make a universal conclusion that there is no God.

Originally posted by Leper
You know, atheists and agnostics are not the same. I used to be agnostic but have gone atheist.
Sorry, what I was trying to get across is that my views aren't quite strong enough to be considered atheist but by the same token not weak enough to be considered agnostic.
Originally posted by Mopoloton
Despite scientific advancement, there’s still a lot we don’t know. Our current knowledge is far too small to make a universal conclusion that there is no God.
I completely agree. There isn't enough knowledge to make a conclusion that there is a god either.

Originally posted by Mopoloton
A volcanic eruption is one of many things human beings have no control over. Some assume that because we can’t control it, nothing can; this is a VERY arrogant assumption.

You are missing the point, I could have used any occurance as an example, but the fact remains the something CAN happen without someone or something knowing about it.
If you look into physics, it is possible for an object to fall even if nothing knows why it fell or understands it. Understanding is not always directly related to actions

As for the assumption, we have not found any other species or proven any other being with more power and control than us. If we cannot control it, I would also assume that no other species or proven being could, because of my and others' previous speculations on species.

We are the dominant species on Earth, and I think that more than likely we are much more powerful than many will like to admit, which is one of the reasons for global warming and the elimination of so many species.

Humans are not as powerful as we like to believe we are; there are lots of events that occur everyday that we cannot control or explain. To say these events are entirely coincidental and are not controlled by ANY conscious force would be quite haughty.
Could you give me an example of the coincidental events that are possibly controlled by a conscious force? That is, after all, what the original post was asking for. Thanks

Despite scientific advancement, there’s still a lot we don’t know. Our current knowledge is far too small to make a universal conclusion that there is no God.
The burden of proof is not on those who are trying to disprove God. Merely by having no evidence is reason enough not to believe.
Look at my invisible fat flying gnome, do you believe in him? For you to believe that I would have to give you evidence or proof which you accepted. People have taken the bible, other books of faith and word of mouth as actual evidence for the existence of God, which is why there are so many today who believe in God.
If you would, or anyone who believes; why and when did you start believing?
If it was when you were very young then I would advise you look at the facts again and examine what you have been told.

if "God" or whatever that creative force is - did come flying down on a chariot - then it'd hardly be much to write home about would it?

I have no reason to believe in some "entity" that neatly fits our perception of what god should be like if he exists - but conversely it's hard to take the "scientific proposal" that no proof = the majestical beauty of life on this planet is simply a random occurance and it has no meaning or value- because that's what it is if there is nothing behind it...

I think putting "god" and scientific method into the same sentance is just looking for nothing in all the wrong places.

Life - even with Scientific method is full of mystery - there are a million things that nobody understands - if you discount everything you cannot prove then science is your God & it's science that's coming out of the clouds in the chariot

Windwip, you’re missing MY point. I remember in my biology class back in college there was an entire chapter about the complexity of the human brain. I can’t remember all the details, but I do remember being convinced that such a thing couldn’t possibly have been formed by sheer coincidence; it HAD to have been created by something. It’s like when you find an Indian arrowhead: you know it’s not an ordinary rock because you can tell it’s been chiseled a certain way.

Just because humans are the dominant species on earth doesn’t automatically mean we’re the most dominant species in existence. Our knowledge is very limited. It’s irrational, if not a bit arrogant, to assume we are at the very top of the intelligence scale just because there is no other species here on earth that matches our intelligence.

You say the burden of evidence isn’t on those who are trying to disprove God, but at the moment, the “proof” side contains more than the “disproof” side. I can confidently say there is a God without having any doubt at all.

I did say that humans are the dominant species on earth. And I have reason to believe that, we have met no other species which has compared to humans. It is a reasonable to use experiences for future judgement, if you are not closing yourself off to rational theories.

I was asking for proof, and if you believe you have some then please post it. Just telling me that there is proof without showing me what proof you are talking about does nothing.

It would be very very hard for you to believe that our brain is whatit is today if you do not believe in evolution, but if you do, then there should be no argument here.

Simply that we have differences between a species, and that some have advantages over others should be enough of a reason to consider evolution. Breeding in animals has been known to bring out traits from both parents, which is why it has been used in the past and now. Changes occur over time in animals, we have seen that. And we have also seen that the ones that have advantages survive and prosper.

I will gladly debate evolution with you if that is where we are disagreeing.

Couple of things about evolution

- It's a theory with more holes than a sieve - adaptation within species yes, but evolution - it's a theory and there is no real proof of that - yet you accept it like it is a gospel

- Even assuming evolution as a valid theory - it's not mutually exclusive with there being an underlying something bigger than just randomness.

Mopoloton used a good analogy about finding an arrow head - you know that it was not just random. Nobody can say exactly what else there is - but it's a good guess that it's not just randomness.

I also agree with Mopoloton's arrowhead analogy.

Micro-evolution, or what I like to call Mendelian evolution, is perfectly reasonable to bring out desireable traits in genetic attributes that breeders use in domesticated animals. But the question is: is macro (or inter-species, inter-genus, inter-KINGDOM) evolution feasible? I say no.

So far there has been no definitive evidence in the fossil record that an intermediate species or genus exists between apes and humans. The evidence for australipithicines and other such half-breeds presented by the Leakeys is sketchy at best. Remember Peking man? Remember Lucy? How can an organism with a chimpanzee's pelvis ever support a human foot?

What about the eye? Even Darwin said that in terms of natural selection, there is no explanation for the creation and the function of the eye.

What about animals with chemical defence mechanisms, like the Bombardier beetle, whose abdomen is a witch's brew of explosive chemicals that, if mixed incorrectly, has the predictablility of exploding as nitroglycerin?

Next, on the origin of life itself. Many evolutionists contend that it took something like a bolt of electricity or some other energetic discharge to "breathe the breath of life" into primitive nucleic acid/lipids/protein complexes that existed within the primordial soup some 4 billion years ago. Many famous experiments that tried to duplicate these conditions found (scientifically) that this cannot be done, since although complex proteins can be created, they are immediate broken down into their constituent amino acids by the processes of oxidation and reduction.

I'm afraid I did not go into enough detail, but there is plenty of scientific evidence to disprove unitelligent development of life, although this evidence may not directly prove that a god exists. What is the alternative?

Originally posted by psamtik071
I also agree with Mopoloton's arrowhead analogy.

Micro-evolution, or what I like to call Mendelian evolution, is perfectly reasonable to bring out desireable traits in genetic attributes that breeders use in domesticated animals.
You agree that micro evolution is possible because you cannot deny it, but what is there to prevent that from expanding to the point of macro evolution?

Chimps have DNA that is 1.6% different from the norm for human DNA. A human's DNA will on average differ from the norm by 0.8%.

So far there has been no definitive evidence in the fossil record that an intermediate species or genus exists between apes and humans. The evidence for australipithicines and other such half-breeds presented by the Leakeys is sketchy at best.
By 'definitive' I am assuming that you mean proof. Yes, evolution has not been proven yet, but you yourself are admitting that there is evidence. This is a field which we can study! We can study previous animals structures and we can gain more evidence. There is something presented which you can use to determine how species changed.
As for God? What can you present to me on his behalf? What can you show me that will convince me? So far I have seen nothing, there is nothing which you can study, nothing which you can use to determine whether God exists.

What about the eye? Even Darwin said that in terms of natural selection, there is no explanation for the creation and the function of the eye.
Would a sensitivity to heat give you an advantage over others who did not have that? Yes of course. Step by step and small changes one at a time will reach complex ends.

What about animals with chemical defence mechanisms, like the Bombardier beetle, whose abdomen is a witch's brew of explosive chemicals that, if mixed incorrectly, has the predictablility of exploding as nitroglycerin?
Get your facts straight. The bombardier beetle's chemicals which react with each other behave nothing like nitroglycerin.
Is a bug's chemical defenses harder to believe than an eye? It is the same process though, through natural selection and mutations.

Next, on the origin of life itself. Many evolutionists contend that it took something like a bolt of electricity or some other energetic discharge to "breathe the breath of life" into primitive nucleic acid/lipids/protein complexes that existed within the primordial soup some 4 billion years ago. Many famous experiments that tried to duplicate these conditions found (scientifically) that this cannot be done, since although complex proteins can be created, they are immediate broken down into their constituent amino acids by the processes of oxidation and reduction.
We have not been able to duplicate the millions of years which life took to start. But earth is unique. It is also unique that life was created HERE as opposed to other planets with similar characteristics. You must not only account for the millions of years on Earth it took life to exist, but of all those planets with similar characteristics where life does NOT exist. That changes the equation quite a bit and makes it easier to comprehend.
I'm afraid I did not go into enough detail, but there is plenty of scientific evidence to disprove unitelligent development of life, although this evidence may not directly prove that a god exists. What is the alternative?
What is the alternative? Is that why you believe in God? Because you cannot comprehend the massive amounts of time and mass it took for life to exist? Why is God easier to believe? Something which is all powerful? What allows him to be all powerful? How can he know everything? Where does he store this knowledge? Why does he speak a language that has so many inconsitancies. Since he is all powerful and all knowing, why did it take him 7 days to create everything. Why not just snap his fingers and have it done. Why does he have to rest? If he knows everything then why does he get mad at humans? Why did he not make them different so that they would not do wrong? Why did he have the tree of knowledge within man's grasp if he knew that man would eat it? Why did he have the snake in the garden when he knew what was going to happen unless he wanted it to happen. Why did he create, or allow the great flood when he could stop it effortlessly? I could go on and on, and I could give you hundreds of fallacies in the bible or any book of faith you give me. Tell me where these books came from, did God create them? If it was man, then how did they know about all those things that happened before man was created. There are obvious fallacies in the idea of God. Answer those questions and I will have hundreds more.

Would a sensitivity to heat give you an advantage over others who did not have that? Yes of course. Step by step and small changes one at a time will reach complex ends.

Is that your whole argument? Where is the evidence for those small changes? That takes as much "faith" as belief in intelligent design. In all the organisms we observe, we see huge shifts in development that cannot be explained by simple mutations over a period of time. You still did not give a good example of how a multicellular (or even a unicellular) organism can ever utilize a physical (mechanical) system that requires that all its parts be present at the same time in order to function (take the flagellum for an example). This has nothing to do with genetic traits.


Chimps have DNA that is 1.6% different from the norm for human DNA. A human's DNA will on average differ from the norm by 0.8%.

That argument is long dead. You do realize that the vast majority (about 85%) of human DNA is junk: it is never used. It is mostly retroviral DNA that somehow spliced itself onto the genome and is no longer active. So a 0.8% difference is actually huge assuming this "junk" DNA exists in chimpanzees as well.

Also, Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent. I won't go into detail, but he used a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.

Other comparisons have been made that show that the chimp and other mammals are not man's closest evolutionary relatives. The cytochrome-C protein in man differs by 14 amino acids from that in a horse, but by only eight from that in a kangaroo. When the same strand is examined, turtles appear closer to man than to a reptile such as the rattlesnake. When this situation is viewed from the evolutionist point of view, a meaningless result will emerge, such as that turtles are more closely related to man than they are to snakes. For instance, chickens and sea snakes differ by 17 amino acids in 100 codons and horses and sharks by 16, which is a greater difference than that between dogs and worm flies, which belong to different phyla even, and which differ by only 15 amino acids. The hemoglobin protein found in human beings differs from that found in lemurs by 20 amino acids, but from that in pigs by only 14. The situation is more or less the same for other proteins. Adrian Friday and Martin Bishop of Cambridge have analyzed the available protein sequence data for tetrapods… To their surprise, in nearly all cases, man (the mammal) and chicken (the bird) were paired off as closest relatives, with the crocodile as next nearest relative…

And so on.

Evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors.

In addition, according to evolution, wouldn't complex organisms have more DNA per cell (in the form of chromosomes) than less complex ones?

You must not only account for the millions of years on Earth it took life to exist, but of all those planets with similar characteristics where life does NOT exist. That changes the equation quite a bit and makes it easier to comprehend.

That's a bit vague, isn't it? What I was talking about was the early EARTH, the planet we live on today. In a book written by researchers at the University of Washington called Rare Earth, they explain that there are extremely few planets with the conditions similar to that of the early earth (take for instance that two-thirds of all stars are in multiple-star systems and a higher percentage have no planets at all).

Get your facts straight. The bombardier beetle's chemicals which react with each other behave nothing like nitroglycerin.

I said that if the chemicals are mixed incorrectly...
Even if I were wrong about the exact nature of the chemicals inside bombardier beetles, I do know that they possess a process that would have had previous generations of beetles to blow themselves up or die some other way without ever having to pass on the necessary genes so that future generations would know how to mix the chemicals properly. Surely nature wouldn't have invented such a convoluted method for beetles to defend themselves.

Your entire last paragraph reeks of irrationality. What I mean by "intelligent design" is a being far (perhaps even infinitely)superior to human life. If such a being exists, who the hell are you to ever argue with whatever it does? You're not God, are you?

Originally posted by psamtik071
You still did not give a good example of how a multicellular (or even a unicellular) organism can ever utilize a physical (mechanical) system that requires that all its parts be present at the same time in order to function (take the flagellum for an example). This has nothing to do with genetic traits.

I'm a definite believer in the theory of evolution, but this is definitely the biggest question in my mind. What evolutionary advantage would a creature with a non-functioning eye have that would allow it to keep evolving until the eye was complete?

Oh, and one more thing. Most evolutionists, like Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould, do not believe that evolution works in small steps. They presented a theory of "punctuated equilibrium" that tries to fill the gaps in the fossil record.

What evolutionary advantage would a creature with a non-functioning eye have that would allow it to keep evolving until the eye was complete?
I didn't say nonfunctioning. One that would detect heat. If you are cold and realize that you will die if you don't warm up then it would definatly help you. Those who couldn't detect it would probably die. From there advantages will come from more accute senses.
Originally posted by psamtik071
Is that your whole argument? Where is the evidence for those small changes?
All animals differ slightly from eachother. How can you argue against that? Those are small changes right there!!!
That argument is long dead. You do realize that the vast majority (about 85%) of human DNA is junk: it is never used. It is mostly retroviral DNA that somehow spliced itself onto the genome and is no longer active. So a 0.8% difference is actually huge assuming this "junk" DNA exists in chimpanzees as well.
This junk dna that you talk about is in almost all animals and plants which supports the idea of evolution. If it was created by a God, then why would it have useless DNA and why would it be in practically all life? The reason is because when a species evolves it maintains the original DNA even if it becomes useless. The reason it maintains it is because it is not a hinderance to keep it, so those who have mutations which alter and delete the old parts of DNA are not better off than those who did not change.
Humans have DNA for gills right? Why would we need that
Evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors.
I will not pretend to be an expert in this field, but there are theories on these occurances, obviously not proven but there is progress. (Unlike the impossible search for God)
That's a bit vague, isn't it? What I was talking about was the early EARTH, the planet we live on today. In a book written by researchers at the University of Washington called Rare Earth, they explain that there are extremely few planets with the conditions similar to that of the early earth (take for instance that two-thirds of all stars are in multiple-star systems and a higher percentage have no planets at all).
The average star has 5 planets. There are approximated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. In that number there are bound to be quite a few planets with the means to support life. Look at Mars, it has the means to support bacterial life. Im not trying to say there was or wasn't life, but it can support it. That is one within our own solar system! If you take the time of all the planets when they could have supported life, you will have an astronomical figure. Much much higher than the years earth has been able to support life. You MUST take those into account if you are to try and use probablility as an argument. You cannot just take into account Earth and the years which it was able to support life!
I said that if the chemicals are mixed incorrectly...
Even if I were wrong about the exact nature of the chemicals inside bombardier beetles, I do know that they possess a process that would have had previous generations of beetles to blow themselves up or die some other way without ever having to pass on the necessary genes so that future generations would know how to mix the chemicals properly. Surely nature wouldn't have invented such a convoluted method for beetles to defend themselves.
Don't try comparing it to nitroglycerin, they are absolutly no similarities in the explosive nature of the two.
You tell me they would have exploded? If the original mutation was of a smaller scale, lets say 2 compounds with small amounts of both, then it would not need a chamber as strong as it is today. From there mutations can bring a stronger chamber and more compounds to make it more effective.
Your entire last paragraph reeks of irrationality. What I mean by "intelligent design" is a being far (perhaps even infinitely)superior to human life. If such a being exists, who the hell are you to ever argue with whatever it does? You're not God, are you?
God is irrational! Now you tell me that because I am arguing this illogical being that I am being irrational?
Why should I not be allowed to argue what it does when there are fallacies in what is credited to him? There is every reason for me to and NO reason for not critiquing Him except laziness or fear that he may not exist.
Why would it matter if I am or am not God. I can argue with those who are more prestigious, those who are richer, those who are more fanatical and I can still be right. I do not have to be on the same plane to be ALLOWED to argue! That in itself is irrational and illogical!

I didn't say nonfunctioning. One that would detect heat. If you are cold and realize that you will die if you don't warm up then it would definatly help you. Those who couldn't detect it would probably die. From there advantages will come from more accute senses.

Where would that come from? My reply was mainly based on the argument that there are irreducibly complex mechanisms in every organism; the eye, the heat-sensitive cell, and the flagellum included. So far the only good reply against that argument goes something like this (courtesy John Rennie, Scientific American):

The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes.

In short, he's saying that the flagellum might have come about "with the recombination of parts that initially evolved for other purposes." Yet that is the whole essence of the matter. What are those "other purposes"? For what purposes could the molecules that make up the flagellum have come about? Saying that "might have come about in other stages we are unaware of" without clearly defining these stages is simply a repetition of Darwinist dogma.

And about "primitive eyes," Natural history reveals that the first eye identified on earth was not primitive at all, but actually had an extraordinarily complex structure. That eye structure in question was the double-lens compound eyes of the trilobites. The nuclear physicist and trilobite aficionado Levi-Setti says: "the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century" The most striking feature of these eyes, described as a marvel of optical design, is that they have no primitive form behind them, but rather emerged suddenly. Even light-sensitive cells that Darwin referred to as "primitive eyes" actually possess an extraordinarily complex structure. Even the most "primitive" eye is an irreducibly complex system requiring a light-sensitive cell, extraordinarily complex biochemical mechanisms within that cell, nerves linking that cell to the brain, and a visual center to interpret these. That cannot come about in stages. For that reason, the theory of evolution is unable even to account for the origin of the most "primitive" eye, let alone use that as a basis to account for more complex ones.


All animals differ slightly from eachother. How can you argue against that? Those are small changes right there!!!

haha...
Getting a bit emotional here, huh?

The basic problem with this stems in the idea of natural selection as proposed by Darwin (of course) and the true definitions of "microevolution" and "macroevolution." In many high school biology classes, these terms are used interchangably with the theory, but there is actually a deception going on here, because the examples of variation that evolutionary biologists have called "microevolution" actually have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution proposes that living things can develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. However, as we have just seen, variations can never create new genetic information, and are thus unable to bring about "evolution." Giving variations the name of "microevolution" is actually an ideological preference on the part of evolutionary biologists.

It is easy for many people who are not already well-informed on the subject come away with the superficial idea that "as it spreads, microevolution can turn into macroevolution." One can often see examples of that kind of thinking. Some "amateur" evolutionists put forward such examples of logic as the following: since human beings' average height has risen by two centimeters in just a century, this means that over millions of years any kind of evolution is possible. However, as has been shown above, all variations such as changes in average height happen within specific genetic bounds, and are trends that have nothing to do with evolution.

Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. Cows can be mated together for millions of years, and different breeds of cows may well emerge. But cows can never turn into a different species-giraffes or elephants for instance. In the same way, the different finches that Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands are another example of variation that is no evidence for "evolution." Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not undergo an unlimited variation as Darwin's theory presupposed. Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin thought represented 14 distinct species actually mated with one another, which means that they were variations that belonged to the same species. Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have been mythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of "variation"; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. For example, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent years observing the finch varieties in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidence for Darwinistic evolution, were forced to conclude that "the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth," a fact which implied that no "evolution" that leads to the emergence of new traits ever takes place there.

On the topic of mutations, I had already stipulated that mutations are generally harmful than helpful. Take bacterial resistence to antibiotics for example. It is true that bacteria can sometimes develop a resistance to antibiotics by means of mutations, but these mutations do not add the bacteria any new genetic information. On the contrary, they lead to morphological degeneration in them. As with the case of immunity to streptomycin revealed in great detail by the Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner: Bacterial resistance to streptomycin stems from a mutation that affects the ribozome and structurally damages it. Even if this mutation benefits the bacteria in terms of antibiotic immunity, it nevertheless represents a genetic reduction that reduces the functioning of the ribosome. As Dr. Spetner has made clear, mutations such as these are not what the theory of evolution needs.

I can argue with those who are more prestigious, those who are richer, those who are more fanatical and I can still be right. I do not have to be on the same plane to be ALLOWED to argue! That in itself is irrational and illogical!

That's a little cavalier, isn't it?

Then you think that some of the world's greatest scientists are as wrong and irrational as I am too, I bet. Newton, Faraday, Kelvin and Maxwell are a few examples of such scientists.

Newton once said that "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." This, after proving that there are physical laws that govern the movement of heavenly bodies. As is evident, thousands of scientists who have been doing research in the fields of physics, mathematics, and astronomy since the Middle Ages all agree on the idea that the universe is created by a single Creator and always focus on the same point. The founder of physical astronomy, Johannes Kepler, stated his strong belief in God in one of his books where he wrote, "Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God." The great physicist, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), who established thermodynamics on a formal scientific basis, was also a Christian who believed in God. He had strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution and totally rejected it. In 1903, short before his death, he made the unequivocal statement that, "With regard to the origin of life, science... positively affirms creative power." One of the professors of physics at Oxford University, Robert Matthews states the same fact in his book where he explains that DNA molecules were created by God. Mattheus says that all these stages proceed in a perfect harmony from a single cell to a living baby, then to a little child, and finally to an adolescent. All these events can be explained only by a miracle, just as in all the other stages of biology. Mattheus asks how such a perfect and complex organism can emerge from such a simple and tiny cell and how a glorious HUMAN is created from a cell even smaller than the dot on the letter i. He finally concludes that this is nothing short of a miracle.

Here are some other scientists you would probably disagree with:
Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)
Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)
Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)
Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)
Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)
John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)
Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)
John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)
Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratiographer who investigated earth layers)
Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)
Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)
Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)
Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

Originally posted by psamtik071
The theory of evolution proposes that living things can develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. However, as we have just seen, variations can never create new genetic information, and are thus unable to bring about "evolution."
That could not be more wrong and you know it. Mutations do alter the genetic information. DNA is like a script that is followed in the creation of a child. UV and other rays can alter this code which gives way to mutations, through the alteration of genes!

However, as has been shown above, all variations such as changes in average height happen within specific genetic bounds, and are trends that have nothing to do with evolution.
The reasons there are changes in height are because taller and women are more desired. This is not just a fluxuation. If this trend continues as it has, then we will continue to have taller and taller children.
Asians are not known for being exeptionally tall, but now more than ever they have been growing much taller and the average as a people is growing.

On the topic of mutations, I had already stipulated that mutations are generally harmful than helpful. Take bacterial resistence to antibiotics for example. It is true that bacteria can sometimes develop a resistance to antibiotics by means of mutations, but these mutations do not add the bacteria any new genetic information. On the contrary, they lead to morphological degeneration in them. As with the case of immunity to streptomycin revealed in great detail by the Israeli biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner: Bacterial resistance to streptomycin stems from a mutation that affects the ribozome and structurally damages it. Even if this mutation benefits the bacteria in terms of antibiotic immunity, it nevertheless represents a genetic reduction that reduces the functioning of the ribosome. As Dr. Spetner has made clear, mutations such as these are not what the theory of evolution needs.
Just as sickle cell anemia hurts humans who have it, but it does make them immune to many, many diseases. It is not a hinderance to the theory. I never said that mutations were always beneficial in the long run, in fact, the vast majority of the time they are fatal. You have pointed out one situation where a mutation survived, and it had survived for a reason. It protected the bacteria! You say it hurt it in the long run, but there would be no long run for it, had it not mutated.

Here are some other scientists you would probably disagree with:
Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry) ect... ect...

Yes I probably disagree with them if they share your views, but I could just as well list respected scientists which share my views and it would not make me right either.

I have gone through this because I disagree with much of what you are saying, but this is straying from the subject. If you successfully disproved evolution, would that prove that a God exists? No, of course not. It would disprove an opposing argument for the oragin of life, but if I was to disect the whole Adam and Eve thing you would be left with nothing. Tell me how we knew about Adam and Eve anyways. I have never heard an explination for where the bible gets the information that happened before man existed and I never heard where Adam or Eve learned to write or speak. Were they granted that knowledge when they were created? Well, I'll stop myself before I start off on impossible questions about the bible.

Originally posted by psamtik071
My reply was mainly based on the argument that there are irreducibly complex mechanisms in every organism; the eye, the heat-sensitive cell, and the flagellum included.

And about "primitive eyes," Natural history reveals that the first eye identified on earth was not primitive at all, but actually had an extraordinarily complex structure. That eye structure in question was the double-lens compound eyes of the trilobites. The nuclear physicist and trilobite aficionado Levi-Setti says: "the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century" The most striking feature of these eyes, described as a marvel of optical design, is that they have no primitive form behind them, but rather emerged suddenly. Even light-sensitive cells that Darwin referred to as "primitive eyes" actually possess an extraordinarily complex structure. Even the most "primitive" eye is an irreducibly complex system requiring a light-sensitive cell, extraordinarily complex biochemical mechanisms within that cell, nerves linking that cell to the brain, and a visual center to interpret these. That cannot come about in stages. For that reason, the theory of evolution is unable even to account for the origin of the most "primitive" eye, let alone use that as a basis to account for more complex ones.


When scientists talk about the "theory" of evolution they are not using the word "theory" in the popular sense which means "an unproven idea". The word "theory" in the scientific sense means the best scientific explanation so far discovered to explain a phenomena. There is no doubt that evolution takes place and no reputable biologist would deny it.

The idea that the design of the eye in nature shows or proves the notion of "irreducible complexity" is just wrong. This idea is commonly put forward by peolple trying to promote the idea of "intelligent design" but it not a scientifically valid argument. Darwin admitted that the eye might be difficult to explain using his "new" theory but not impossible.

see the following link:

Although I would not expect you to read it, there is a book that outlines (a hell of a lot better than me) the scientific plausibility of design called No Free Lunch by Dr. William Dembski. In it he points out some of the drawbacks of evolutionary algorithms and "lays the foundations for a research project aimed at answering on one of the most fundamental scientific questions of our time: what is the maximal specified complexity that can be reasonably expected to emerge (in a given time frame) with an d without various design assumptions" according Moshe Koppel, Professor of Mathematics. Even a strong critic acknowledges Dembski's method of argument when he says "I disagree with many of his arguments, but I do find his ideas intriguing to consider and debate. Anyone who is interested in these issues and in the Design movement that Dembski spearheads should find No Free Lunch a stimulating and provocative book (Don N. Page, Professor of Physics)." All in all, design can be viewed scientifically, so this leaves another option available.

I understand what a scientific theory is. I also understand that if most theories contradict scientific data, it should be discarded or modified. 150 years after this theory was formulated, and has practically gone no where (I do have to admit that some advances have been made), yet its proponents continue to dogmatically cling to it. Finally, I don't to completely throw this academically accepted theory (even with its many holes), but I do want to explore more possibilities since "Biology has been ill-served by the mindless insistence that blind natural mechanisms account for the totality of biological complexity and diversity (Philip S. Skell, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, member of the National Academy of Sciences)."

The eye question has been addressed in this and "life as energy eddies" posts, and the main problem is: what is the initial mechanism of that first "light/heat sensitive" cell? "How exactly did a lens form within a pinhole camera? How did a spot become innervated and thereby light-sensitive? With respect to embryology, what developmental changes are required to go from a light-sensitive cup? None of these questions receives an answer in purely Darwinian terms." But what this description does well is provide a plausible explanation of the various changes an organism would go through in order to adapt so that one structure would change into another, in the absence of actual historical documentation that supports this premise. We could say that based on this explanation of the evolution of the eye, that nature itself is a creative and masterful force that we cannot hope to understand. However, "we must content ourselves with recording what nature has wrought without being able to trace nature's hand or reproduce her steps."

In short, we need a fair representation of the evidence. According to Dembski, "Dawkins may be right that design is absent from the universe. But science needs to address not only the evidence that reveals the universe to be without design but also the evidence that reveals the universe to be with design. Evidence is a two-edged sword." Even is design isn't the answer, it must be refuted when evidence for and against it are carefully and fairly accounted. Otherwise, science would be constrained by limiters that would "stifle inquiry, undermine education, turn scientists into a secular priesthood, and in the end prevent intelligent design from receiving a fair hearing." Even Darwin noticed that "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Besides, those scientists who stipulate that the universe is governed by theoretical entities like strings, membranes, and parallel universes could easily add an intelligent designer to the list.

Psamtik I'm glad that your helping to turn this discussion to finding a truth rather than just one side doing anything they can to discredit the other.

I agree, to a point, with the limit to evolution. But at the point where I believe evolution can go no further, the intelligence of the species will allow it to enhance itself almost to the point of possible perfection.

Still, though a greater being could exist without evolution, only a handful of religions could not conicide with proof of evolution existing. Basically, there could be a god with evolution, and there could be a god without evolution, but Christianity and similar religions could not work if evolution is proven, so they will fight vehemently against it.

From followers of these religions I have heard many arguments against carbon dating and evolution. Many of which I have researched and found to be faulty, I could post a few if you want.

I hope there is a Supreme Being.

Try for a moment to imagine a being that could make and control all that is.
We may be so far below his awareness that he would not notice us,especially as individuals. We walk by an ant bed and are aware of them but we do not take interest in getting to know them ( probably a bad example) individually.
It may be the ultimate vanity to think that we are so important that each day is planned for us as an individual.
I am in the same boat as everyone else. I hope,but i cannot prove.

There is a funny story by Issac Asimov about God and what he does. Although I disagree with the idea, I still find it interesting, so I will summarize it for you:

Humanity is celebrating the advance of artificially intelligent computing technology and christened their new invention MULTIVAC (or Multi-Variable Automatic Computer). This is the fastest and most powerful computer ever made as it could solve problems that would take normal computers the lifetime of the universe to solve. As two scientists discuss stars and the second law of thermodynamics, they jokingly ask the computer, "Is there any way to reverse entropy?" to which the computer answers, after a long pause, "there is insufficient data for a meaningful response."

Fast forward a thousand years. A family traveling through interstellar space to find a new home on a colony world. The daughter asks her father if the people can keep stars like the sun burning forever and reverse the process of entropy. The father queries the MICROVAC (a more compact, more powerful version of the MULTIVAC) to which the computer replies, "there is as of yet insufficient data for a meaningful response."

Fast forward a million years. Humanity has colonized most of the Milky Way galaxy, with their homeworld left behind forever. Having discovered the fountain of youth, human beings do not age as the centuries pass. Their advanced technology now about to spread to other galaxies, fueled only by the energy of the stars. Two aged men discuss the prospect of resurrecting dead and dying stars (e.g. white dwarves) to supply power to all the quadrillions of humans in the galaxy. So they ask the Galactic AC, a network of trillions of computers in hyperspace, "is it possible to reverse the flow of entropy?" The computer answers once again, "there is as of yet insufficient data for a meaningful response."

Fast forward many billions of years. Humanity is a dying, tenuous single mind, stretching the length of many galaxies, a cloud of consciousness, having lost their immortal bodies many eons ago. Their main source of power, the stars, are slowly growing old and dying out. The only option left is to conserve their energy as best as possible, until they radiate heat at a temperature a few degrees above absolute zero. Thought is limited, but one thought does traverse through its mind. So it asks the Universal AC, now completely in hyperspace, if entropy can be reversed. The computer answers, "there is still as of yet insufficient data for a meaningful response." "Is it impossible, then?" Humanity wonders. "On the contrary," the computer responds, "there is simply insufficient data to analyse effectively the problem of entropy. Once I have gained enough data, I will give you a satisfactory solution." "We are patient. We will wait for your answer," the cloud replies.

Humanity finally winks out and after trillions and trillions of years, the Universal AC continues to meticulously gather data until finally it comes out with an answer. But humanity and the material universe is gone, so the computer figures that it should start the process from step 1: So It said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" And there was light.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I am in the same boat as everyone else. I hope,but i cannot prove.

Yes and I hope for a fountain of knowledge to clear up a couple things, but there is obviously no such thing. I may want it to happen, but I know that realistically there is no way there could be such a elixir.

I want to ask, not to you but just in general, to any followers of the Bible; do you follow this book word for word? Just curious if you believe that everything written is true.

I believe everything in the bible is true as far as the writers knew - more precisely I don't think any of it is false, rather some of it is inaccurate. I think it's man's interpretation of events and the world around them, which is of course flawed.

Lionel

I like that answer I also believe that the Bible holds alot of truth depending on how one looks at it. It would kind of like being a cave man; you know for a fact the only way to make fire is by banging rocks together or by rubbing sticks. Who would have ever thought you could hold a fire in your pocket and just turn it off and on.

Originally posted by WindWip
Yes and I hope for a fountain of knowledge to clear up a couple things, but there is obviously no such thing. I may want it to happen, but I know that realistically there is no way there could be such a elixir.

And lets not forget how stupid a thought it was for humans to fly, I quess that will never happen either. Be very carefull of how you use the word never, it might come back and bite you in the arse.

I want to ask, not to you but just in general, to any followers of the Bible; do you follow this book word for word? Just curious if you believe that everything written is true.

I'm not Christian but I do believe some of the stories in the Bible. I believe the book does hold some truth, intepretation is the key word

Couldn't have said it any better, I think

Originally posted by mad dog
And lets not forget how stupid a thought it was for humans to fly, I quess that will never happen either. Be very carefull of how you use the word never, it might come back and bite you in the arse.
Well the point I was making is that there can be something which is impossible, you can agree to this right?
How about my invisible flying stuper gnome? That I can say does not exist.

The whole idea of a fountain of knowledge is not possible. This liquid would have to enter your bloodstream, go to your brain and alter all the right areas to make you smart without killing you or making you a vegetable.

It is possible to give information to your brain, but thats off the topic

Windwip

What happens in the year 3000 when they do have a "magical" liquid drug that helps someone think(with no side effects)? What happens in the year 4000 when people live too be 200-210 years old?

I understand you saying this or that is impossible right now, but nothing is impossible. Lets travel back in time to the very begaining, life on this planet that is impossible, oops along comes life. Now start moving forward dino's are the king heck they'll live for ever so much power, etc... bang dino is gone. Now move forward again, this little pain in the arse shows up "HUMAN"(can you hear the music) Now take the first human and pull him out of his time and dump him into the middle of New York city. See my point, nothing is impossible. As far as your Flying Gnome, I have no clue of what is out there(space) could it be possible, sure, will I ever see it, doubt it. Will the man from the year 5000 see it, anything is possible. You have to take a hard look at what has happened on this planet and how things change. Did you ever hear of a beaver that weighed as much as a bear, or how about an elephant with hair. I would bet if you brought a cave man into our time he would freak out. Just the same as if we could take you and move you to the year 55000

Impossible and never are two words rarely used in science. The closest thing that ever comes close to them is 'improbable,' which means that the probabilistic resources available to bring about an event is less than the universal probability bound, about 1 in 10^150. The mere fact thought that no empirically scientific proof that something is 'impossible' does not detract from the argument that there are events that have a zero probability of occuring.

Probabilistic resources, contrary to popular thought, are not infinite, so there are events have a non-zero probability that can be considered improbable. We live in a finite universe, with a finite amount of particles, with a finitely small unit of fundamental time (the Planck time), and with a finite amount of time for some of those events to take place (time has a direction; when protons decay, the probability for matter to exist will drastically decrease). There is no evidence as of yet for parallel universes or anything like that, so we can safely say that there are things that can 'never' happen.

Lets travel back in time to the very begaining, life on this planet that is impossible, oops along comes life. Now start moving forward dino's are the king heck they'll live for ever so much power, etc... bang dino is gone. Now move forward again, this little pain in the arse shows up "HUMAN"(can you hear the music) Now take the first human and pull him out of his time and dump him into the middle of New York city. See my point, nothing is impossible.

No, I don't see your point. You should be careful too when you say 'nothing is...'

Besides, how do YOU know if time travel itself is even possible? Numerous papers published by some of the world's greatest physicists (including Stephen Hawking) show the improbability of time travel in the first place (see Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture, and Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps).

Here is a list of things I safely believe are 'impossible':

The ability for any unprotected human being living in the year 2004 to survive a direct nuclear blast.

The ability for any unprotected human being living in the year 2004 to survive in a 100% vaccuum for 5 years straight.

To get an object colder than absolute zero

A rocket to exceed the speed of light fueled only by matchsticks

For a normal human being (when I mean normal, I mean a someone living in the year 2004 with a lifespan of about 70-80 years) to successfully come out alive after digging through the planet (through the center) with a spoon.

For a normal unaided human being to able to reach the escape velocity of the earth under his/her own power.

The list is (almost) infinite.

I allready said some things at this time with our knowledge are impossible but we can not know the future. Is tomorrow comming, probably, ooops something happened and the planet is gone. Nothing is impossible, while things at this time with our knowledge are.

I also agree with your time travel post, infact the other evening they had a show on about it. At the end of the show they said "when" we travel through time, not "if" or "will".

How do you know for a FACT that humans wouldn't be able to tap into a part of the brain that can make them do strange things. Of course when this happens it won't seem strange to them, only us. Take a cave man bring him forward and have him sit next to us, now start talking use 2-3-4-5- languages. I'm not saying he couldn't learn, but then again we would be able to learn from our followers in the year 55000 as long as we still are basically the same. Can we eat raw spoiled meat without getting sick? no could our ancesters? yes and they did. once again anything can or could be possible if there is enough time involved. maybe 1 million years from now humans will have wings????????????

Wow, you guys really hit it off on that impossible thing.
I think u 2 are on a different plane. From what I got from the argument, mad dog is comparing possibility given time and psamtik is comparing possibility given existing conditions. Yes much can change given enough time and we can't be sure what that will bring but there are certanties in life as psamtik was saying.

I guess I didnt make it clear on what I was trying to say originally. I was merely saying that it is possible for something to be impossible
How about saying that the gnome i chose has certain characteristics which break the laws of physics and other laws that we have created. Like, he can move through space without any propulsion. Or he continually emits energy without consuming anything ever.

As I said before, it is all about probability. We can predict with relative certainty universal events using our current science. However, just as we cannot(which means impossible) examine the individual movements of gas molecules, we cannot predict a specific event to ever occur (like the development of WindWip's gnome).

How do you know for a FACT that humans wouldn't be able to tap into a part of the brain that can make them do strange things. Of course when this happens it won't seem strange to them, only us. Take a cave man bring him forward and have him sit next to us, now start talking use 2-3-4-5- languages. I'm not saying he couldn't learn, but then again we would be able to learn from our followers in the year 55000 as long as we still are basically the same. Can we eat raw spoiled meat without getting sick? no could our ancesters? yes and they did. once again anything can or could be possible if there is enough time involved. maybe 1 million years from now humans will have wings????????????

In order to for this to be possible, you have to assume that the mechanisms that govern human development work like this. So far we have not seen evidence that supports this. Who knows? In the next decade (much less a million years) humanity may blow itself into oblivion and all you say will be moot.

Back to time and its affect on probability. There may be an infinite amount of time ahead of us, but only a finite amount of time can be used to bring about probabilistic outcomes. What I mean is that after the 'heat death' of the universe trillions of years from now and the final decay of matter, it will be impossible for something as complex and energetic as life to remain. There is just one impossible projection based on current laws of thermodynamics and nuclear physics. Therefore there is only a window of about a few trillion years (by far a finite number) for which all events concerning life can be exercised. Since there are so many outcomes when compared with the length of this window of time, not all probabilities will come about. Therefore, this one example shows that it is possible for something to be impossible, even with the consideration of time.

mad dog, it may be perfectly reasonable to suppose what you are saying, but when you say that "nothing is impossible," you have to consider ALL possibilities, including (and especially) current ones.

I do agree nothing is improbable, I think we are on the same note. I am just saying without TOTAL 100% knowledge of everything we (humans) can not possibly understand everything that is or allready did happen. So their you go it is impossible for us to understand EVERYTHING :)

As you have said time may go on forever or it may not, but then again what is time. I have always found dreams to be interesting, take someone having a dream, it sometimes seems like there dream life is lasting hours, or days, when in reality it is only lasting minutes. Or take someone that is having fun at an amusment park their day goes by fast compared to the guy that had to sit in a room all day and wait for something. Of course we know that both guys had the same amount of hours in their day but in their reality they seem to have 2 totally different time spans

Sure, people have different perceptions of time (and with special relativity, time is no longer absolute), but we have already established an empirical measurement of time according to an inertial reference frame, and it is by that scale that I measure probabilistic resources. For example, we define a second to be the time it takes for light to traverse approximately 299790000 meters, and the shortest length of time using the highest frequency that subatomic particles can interact with one another in that second (that is, 10^45 Hz). So I make my case using these empirical definitions of time, not a human being's perception of it.